[Ali]

In this forum, the Doping Reform forum, the discussions should address ways of removing doping from professional cycling, I guess.

I have no ideas on that personally, but I would like to venture forth the ideas of a well respected doctor who had a long relationship with professional cyclists. A doctor who was also very against doping in cycling.

His belief was that he was treating cyclists and trying to maintain their body parmeters within normal limits. That related to items such as calory, vitamin, mineral and hormonal balances. The stresses of cycling at that level place grave demands on all of those body parameters. All are legally treatable apart from hormonal ones. The physician's view was that legitimate medical treatment included restoring hormnal imbalances (resulting from the extreme stresses of stage races) to normal levels. This avoided health risks to the athlete.

My view is that this is a very rational, intelligent and measurable means of monitoring and controlling the health (and doping) of professional cyclists. It's just a pity that the visionary I'm talking about is now dead.

Clearly, this does not comply with the current doping regulations which are in place. Any attempt to treat a hormonal imbalance of a cyclist is a doping offence, not a medical intervention.

I think this worthy of discussion. Controlled treatment or zero-tollerance ?

[ludwig]

The thing about that distinguishes dope from medicine is precisely that, is it not? EPO in sports is not about maintaining or restoring health--its more about pushing the limits of the body to do things it wasn't necessarily meant to do.... If the drugs weren't risky they wouldn't be forbidden--I think this is why every push to legalize or tolerate the dope is rejected...even by the cyclists who are risking their reputations.

This post has been edited by ludwig: 14 March 2009 - 03:29 PM

[Steve in ATL]

If the drugs weren't risky they wouldn't be forbidden-

Umm, let's not go down the "it's for their safety" road when there is so much evidence to to the contrary. Promoters, the UCI, and WADA care little to nothing about rider safety.

[frenchfry]

In this forum, the Doping Reform forum, the discussions should address ways of removing doping from professional cycling, I guess.

I have no ideas on that personally, but I would like to venture forth the ideas of a well respected doctor who had a long relationship with professional cyclists. A doctor who was also very against doping in cycling.

His belief was that he was treating cyclists and trying to maintain their body parmeters within normal limits. That related to items such as calory, vitamin, mineral and hormonal balances. The stresses of cycling at that level place grave demands on all of those body parameters. All are legally treatable apart from hormonal ones. The physician's view was that legitimate medical treatment included restoring hormnal imbalances (resulting from the extreme stresses of stage races) to normal levels. This avoided health risks to the athlete.

My view is that this is a very rational, intelligent and measurable means of monitoring and controlling the health (and doping) of professional cyclists. It's just a pity that the visionary I'm talking about is now dead.

Clearly, this does not comply with the current doping regulations which are in place. Any attempt to treat a hormonal imbalance of a cyclist is a doping offence, not a medical intervention.

I think this worthy of discussion. Controlled treatment or zero-tollerance ?

Fuentes is dead?

I always saw him more as an opportunistic profiteer than a visionary. Or maybe a visionary opportunistic profiteer.

Umm, let's not go down the "it's for their safety" road when there is so much evidence to to the contrary. Promoters, the UCI, and WADA care little to nothing about rider safety.

Promoters and UCI maybe (though their are some within their ranks that actually care), but WADA has at least a passing interest in the athlete's health.

The doping doctors, on the other hand, are evil.

[Chris E]

It doesn't matter. No matter where you draw the line designating treatment vs doping, there will always be ones that will cross that line. You're just moving the goal posts.

[diknutz]

It doesn't matter. No matter where you draw the line designating treatment vs doping, there will always be ones that will cross that line. You're just moving the goal posts.

100 years ago, a woman couldn't show her ankles in public without being a harlot...goalpost moved.

100 years ago a competitior in the tdf had to fix his own bike if it brokeand if i remember, he could only have 1 bike)...goalpost moved.

time trial bars used to be illegal...goalpost moved.

are dietary supplements that deliver more nutrients more effectively than simply eating "food" any different than a transfusion done to keep blood parameters at a healthy minimum? how?

goalposts move all the time..."cheating" I hope will always be on the wrong side of the goal...but what specifically constitutes "cheating" has always, and will always change over time...arguing for some kind of permitted doping is not the same as arguing for a pharmaceutical free-for-all..it might actually help to keep the free-for-all in check.

[Steve in ATL]

Promoters and UCI maybe (though their are some within their ranks that actually care), but WADA has at least a passing interest in the athlete's health.

The doping doctors, on the other hand, are evil.

I would disagree strongly. If you look back @ the formation of WADA, it in itself was formed out of politics - it was formed as a sop to give the person who failed to unseat the then-head of the IOC in the election for the President. It was a sinecure that was deftly maneuvered by it's head into the most powerful organization in the Olympic movement.

[Chris E]

...goalposts move all the time..."cheating" I hope will always be on the wrong side of the goal...but what specifically constitutes "cheating" has always, and will always change over time...arguing for some kind of permitted doping is not the same as arguing for a pharmaceutical free-for-all..it might actually help to keep the free-for-all in check.

I doubt it. If parameters are set for recovery use, then IMO those parameters will be exceeded. The sensible person should either be for total ban or not set limits to their use. Anything in between is folly.

It's along the same lines awhile back when there was argument to make the GT's shorter to reduce doping. That won't work because drugs can always give advantage in even the shortest events. Ask Marion Jones and Ben Johnson.

[diknutz]

I doubt it. If parameters are set for recovery use, then IMO those parameters will be exceeded.

a sensible person would realize that there will always be a motivation to cheat by some...call it the dark side of human nature.

it's much easier to test every rider for some basic parameters than it is to test a few for 50-odd specific substances...it's a question of effective use of resources...

[Chris E]

...it's much easier to test every rider for some basic parameters than it is to test a few for 50-odd specific substances...it's a question of effective use of resources...

Talk about moving goalposts. We started by talking about whether it is realistic to think that doping for recovery would diminish the incentive to cheat, to now proposing whittling down what is being tested. I agree that would diminish the AAF's!

I'm admit I am not up on this.....how are riders chosen for OOC testing, or during smaller stage races and one day races? I know what it is for GT's, and I don't have a problem with that.

I beg to differ that keeping up with and evaluating fluctuating blood parameters over a year of hundreds of cyclists is an easier chore or more effective than testing the shyt out of winners.

[diknutz]

Talk about moving goalposts. We started by talking about whether it is realistic to think that doping for recovery would diminish the incentive to cheat, to now proposing whittling down what is being tested. I agree that would diminish the AAF's!

I'm admit I am not up on this.....how are riders chosen for OOC testing, or during smaller stage races and one day races? I know what it is for GT's, and I don't have a problem with that.

I beg to differ that keeping up with and evaluating fluctuating blood parameters over a year of hundreds of cyclists is an easier chore or more effective than testing the shyt out of winners.

yes, because spectrometry and chromotography are so cheap(and fast too), while a simple blood test is extremely expensive, and takes forever...oh yeah, and spreadsheets require a phd.

where we started was with a discussion about doping reform...if a doping product were allowed for recovery (the tenet of this thread), why would you then test for it? obviously, if you allow someone to use epo, you're going to find it in them when you test for it...

ideally there would be no evaluation necessary...you either meet a threshold for a given parameter or you don't. no interpretation required. question is, what parameters...hct obviously, but what else?

one of the things i like about this approach is that it doesn't leave the authorities always behind the technology curve...everyone will always have an hct number, regardless of what new concoction they've decided to pump themselves full of. whereas today, all we have to do is fiddle with a molecule a little bit so that the current tests can't detect the "new" product...good for the drug testing industry i guess, but sort of sets up a perpetual cycle of disappointment for me.

[Ali]

Fuentes is dead? ...

I was referring to Francois Bellocq. Ask Lemond for a reference, if you're unsure.

[adker]

100 years ago, a woman couldn't show her ankles in public without being a harlot...goalpost moved.

100 years ago a competitior in the tdf had to fix his own bike if it brokeand if i remember, he could only have 1 bike)...goalpost moved.

time trial bars used to be illegal...goalpost moved.

are dietary supplements that deliver more nutrients more effectively than simply eating "food" any different than a transfusion done to keep blood parameters at a healthy minimum? how?

goalposts move all the time..."cheating" I hope will always be on the wrong side of the goal...but what specifically constitutes "cheating" has always, and will always change over time...arguing for some kind of permitted doping is not the same as arguing for a pharmaceutical free-for-all..it might actually help to keep the free-for-all in check.

Wow I did not see this coming, I agree with you 100% and I think that is more the answer. Keep the goal post moving, keep them guessing, and be offensive not defensive.

The issue right now is the testing parameters are to well known and the science to doping is staying ahead. I say they come out with a huge list of banned substances, constantly update it, and keep testing for things you are not even sure you can find. For once keep the dopers guessing not the other way around.

You are never going to stop it. so you need to create the impression that they will get caught. Most security systems are flawed and the installers could tell you ways around them, however they give the impression of security and that scares off the criminals. The risk is greater then the reward so they move on.

They need to have a centralized and secure testing authority, that stays ahead of the technology, the Landis case made it very clear that we know way to much about the test used and how the results are quantified which makes it easy to figure out how to get around them. That needs to go away.

I have said this a million times now. This never stops until solid leadership takes over the entire process and the sport. Then you can move forward on doping and everything else.